You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ presented evidence of the janitorial schedule for a particular day which was deemed sufficient to preclude liability because plaintiff did not demonstrate the schedule was manifestly unreasonable.  And plaintiff’s testimony the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition on the stairs:

Defendants’ superintendent offered testimony as to the janitorial schedule to be followed on a particular day. An established reasonable cleaning routine precludes the imposition of liability … . Where, as here, the incident occurs outside of the scheduled cleaning routine, plaintiff’s failure to raise a factual issue that such routine was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it warrants dismissal of the complaint … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that there was no wet condition on the stairs when he left the building, that upon his return a short while later he observed an alleged wet condition on the stairs, that he did not notify anyone of such condition, and that as a result of this condition he slipped and fell on the stairs as he was leaving the building a second time. Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that defendants did not have actual notice of the purported wet condition, or constructive notice given that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it … . Thomas v Sere Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06443, First Dept 9-3-19

You might also like
IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.
BY NOT SEEKING THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEBT IN THE 90-DAY NOTICE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT MAKING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A PLASTIC SHEET PLACED OVER AN ESCALATOR TO PROTECT IT FROM DRIPPING PAINT; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION DISMISSED; THE PLASTIC COVER WAS NOT A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE; AND THE PLASTIC COVER WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).
Shareholders’ Requests for Documents for Investigation of Possible Wrongdoing by Corporation Were Facially Legitimate Under the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and Common Law–No Need for Shareholders to Bring a Shareholders’ Derivative Action to Procure the Documents

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR... THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS...